↓ Skip to main content

At the borders of medical reasoning: aetiological and ontological challenges of medically unexplained symptoms

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 205)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
110 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
At the borders of medical reasoning: aetiological and ontological challenges of medically unexplained symptoms
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-8-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thor Eirik Eriksen, Roger Kerry, Stephen Mumford, Svein Anders Noer Lie, Rani Lill Anjum

Abstract

Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) remain recalcitrant to the medical profession, proving less suitable for homogenic treatment with respect to their aetiology, taxonomy and diagnosis. While the majority of existing medical research methods are designed for large scale population data and sufficiently homogenous groups, MUS are characterised by their heterogenic and complex nature. As a result, MUS seem to resist medical scrutiny in a way that other conditions do not. This paper approaches the problem of MUS from a philosophical point of view. The aim is to first consider the epistemological problem of MUS in a wider ontological and phenomenological context, particularly in relation to causation. Second, the paper links current medical practice to certain ontological assumptions. Finally, the outlines of an alternative ontology of causation are offered which place characteristic features of MUS, such as genuine complexity, context-sensitivity, holism and medical uniqueness at the centre of any causal set-up, and not only for MUS. This alternative ontology provides a framework in which to better understand complex medical conditions in relation to both their nature and their associated research activity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 110 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Canada 2 2%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 100 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 17%
Other 18 17%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Other 28 26%
Unknown 6 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 20%
Psychology 16 15%
Philosophy 7 6%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 12 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2021.
All research outputs
#372,654
of 19,491,641 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#4
of 205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,387
of 174,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,491,641 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 174,825 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them